Most Discussed

Apple picks sides in California marriage debate

updated 02:55 pm EDT, Fri October 24, 2008

by MacNN Staff

Apple fights Prop. 8

In an unusually political move, Apple has taken a stance on a ballot issue affecting its home state of California, according to an announcement. The company has declared itself publicly opposed to Proposition 8, a measure which would amend California's constitution to ban gay and lesbian marriages. Such marriages were legalized following a decision of the California Supreme Court, which noted that sanctions against them violated an equal protection clause of the state's constitution.

Aside from announcing its opposition, Apple has taken the further measure of donating $100,000 to No On 8, a political action group. The company explains that it was one of the first businesses in California to offer full rights and benefits to gay and lesbian workers, and sees Proposition 8 as a violation of civil rights, not just a political split.

Earlier this year Apple was voted one of the most gay-friendly companies in a US survey, due in part to its employment policies, but also to factors like advertising and the influence of friends and the media.

TAGS

TOTAL_COMMENTS Comments

g** and L****** workers are one thing, but there are flaws in equal protection when the definition of marriage was around long before a definition of equal protection was. Apparently there is a flaw in "equal protection." If not, then we have to make males and females the same--which we know is not the case.Stick to electronic products.

I agree in that Apple needs to stay as far away from politics as they possibly can. Any position they ever take will always end up alienating some of their customers so it's best to just stay out. Of course adding Al Gore to the board showed where Apple stands enough as it is anyway.

So then, Apple ought to be in favor of polygamy and extend benefits to those men and women in such plural marriages (or similar arrangements since they are also banned by law). The whole marriage equality thing as currently argued is hypocritical in it's apparent defense of two partner marriages even though it is clearly not the only way to be "married."

so, because it's a definition that's been around a long time we should leave it alone? at one time the earth was defined as flat and the heavens circled it.the definition of a man was pretty narrow not that long ago. some men had to use a different bathroom, couldn't eat at some fine food establishments, couldn't drink water from some fountains. at what point do we simply stop looking at what has changed and accept the status quo? is there some kind of cut off point you'd like to recommend?

I am really proud of Apple for this. Not many companies have the guts to do something like this.

We have enough problems in this country without trying to knock out people who care and love each other.

The definition of marriage was made by humans. The entire idea that just because two people of the same s** love each other they cannot get married is simply STUPID and another one of those silly notions from the dark ages.

If you read their post you'd see to them it is not a political issue, it is a civil rights issue. Yes it's been politicized by those who hate those who aren't like them, or have preferences that they think are "icky" but fundamentally, how can anyone possibly justify not giving everyone the same rights?

Good for Apple.

As for whether the "definition of marriage" pre-dated civil rights. . . who cares? Slavery, hatred and discrimination predated the definition of civil rights too. So did the terror of the unknown or misunderstood.

Civil rights IMPROVE matters, they don't say whatever exists now must remain forever. Marriage may have religious significance, but most relevantly it has legal significance (the only relevance here). Civili rights are ultimately a legal issue.

Besides, taking that logic, homosexuality predates sentience. So the fact that some overly rigidly minded people decided many millions of years later to "define" something to exclude those whose preferences differ is hardly a reason continue that absurd and patently unfair position.

Sometimes it isn't about the customers. It's about the employees. As a business, you can't hire the best/brightest if you appear to discriminate or advocate discrimination.

As for "marriage"... there's a civil/legal/secular term and a religious term. The CA and US Constitutions are secular by their very nature. There are legal benefits that should be equal (and now, by legal interpretation, are.) Enshrining discrimination of one class in any constitution shouldn't happen in the US. (If you're aware, the US Constitution did (Article 1 Sec 2) but the that was amended to remove and clarify non-discrimination (Amend. 13-15, 19)

The religious term can stay status quo for each individual's own religious beliefs as dictated by the separation of church and state.

I can understand supporting certain rights like healthcare, but this is truly depressing. I love Apple, their history, their products, their innovative spirit, but their outright support of g** marriage has diminished my opinion of this great American company.

Apple needs to stay out of political/religious hotbeds like this. In fact, ALL companies should stay out of political hotbeds like this. g** marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with civil liberties. It is a digression of our society away from God and toward what WE want. What WE think is good for US. g** marriage is damaging to the entire society and will do nothing but hurt Apple's image, and their bottom line, in the end.

californians already voted on the issue only to have their decision reversed by the courts. once again, the voters are ignored by liberal judges. when two of the same s** can conceive a baby together, i'll support the sanctity of marriage for them. give them civil rights, let's not allow them to hijack our religious beliefs too.

"The religious term can stay status quo for each individual's own religious beliefs as dictated by the separation of church and state."

To Bauhaus and others who may believe revisionist history... Separation of Church and State was intended to keep the government out of church/religious affairs, NOT to keep faith out of the government!!! Unfortunately, that is the mantra today. For example... "We can't have the 10 commandments hung on a courthouse wall" or "'In God We Trust' shouldn't be on the dollar bill", or "Teacher's can't pray during school". This is the path we're going down as a country. We are becoming a government of which our heritage fled.

If you study the reason and purpose America was founded, it's easy to see it was to get away from oppressing and sometimes tyrannical governments who suppressed and/or controlled religion/faith. Early settlers came to America for freedom... primarily freedom to worship God!

so here's the question to all the god fearing folks who are about to deluge this site:

you have complete freedom of religion. you can build a church and worship any god you want. you can start a tv show on sunday mornings if you have the money and followers. you can bow your head in prayer anywhere you feel like it and silently praise whom you wish. on the bus, in the car, at a game, at work, at school - anywhere you wish.

no one, as in nobody at all, will come and stop you. not the government, not your fellow americans.

so why isn't that enough? why do your want to force YOUR belief and YOUR god on the rest of society? it's not enough for you? you have to have it in government and schools as well? why isn't it enough for you?

A corporation's primary and sole purpose to exist is to earn profit for its owners, in this publicly-traded corporation's case, its shareholders. As a shareholder who believes firmly in the right of any individual, regardless of his or her sexual orientation, to enjoy all civil rights afforded to any other member of society, I am left not to ponder the g** marriage debate, but to ask: where is my dividend check?

Let the individual members of Apple's board pony up their own cash to lobby against Proposition 8. Were I a resident of CA, I'd be able to also. But I'd prefer if Apple Management not use my dividends to do it, any more than I want anyone using my money for any political purpose without my consent. This is a fundamentally unsound and irresponsible decision on the part of Management, not Apple's owners. Now, Management, would you please get back to ensuring Apple continues to build the greatest personal computers available and make me some money while you're at it?

23 comments and no one mentioning how MacNN used the old 'rainbow' apple logo for the g** story.

People always told me that Macs were a 'fruit' computer.

Oh, and 1golfdoc, don't get me started about so-called Liberal Judges or Activist Judges, which is a label basically given a judge who rules against how some people think they should rule.

Just because a majority of the people think something should be done does NOT mean it is legal or morally correct, one way or the other. If the people had voted FOR g** marriage and rights, and the judges struck it down, would you be complaining about the judges going against the will of the people?

And how can any society with a 50% divorce rate actually say with a straight face that g** marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage? And should we mention the religious, married gov't officials who always seem to screaming about g*** being offensive, yet get caught in the same web?

Oh, and to follow up the previous post to 1golfdoc and the liberal judges, they ruled that the vote violated the state's constitution. So all you need to do is get your state to repeal that amendment, or pass an amendment, and you'll be set and safe!

To those who think this is an issue, why do you care? You do know that god = imaginary friend? Useless wars on religion are just fighting about who has the best imaginary friend, but benefits weapons manufacturers.

I am straight but I think if it makes some people happy then go for it. The homosexuals are not going to steal straight people or "convert" you to their ways...

What possible good can come to Apple by taking sides on a very divisive issue?

They just alienated a large portion of their customer base! As an Apple shareholder, I find this very disappointing.

Stick to making great products Apple... not to supporting special rights for people based solely on the deviant type of s** they have! Apple is trying to appease the lowest common denominator, never a good idea in business.

This morning I recommended a new MacBook to a PC using friend of mine looking to purchase an Apple. This afternoon I revoked my recommendation on this news. Most likely a lost sale, and a lost future customer as well. I know I won't be singing Apple's praises anymore!

Those "evil liberals" are responsible for the legal establishment of every single civil right this country has.

Oh yeah, they are also responsible for this country.

Perhaps some of these people whining about "activist judges" or "liberals" should pick up a and actual history book written by an actual historian. Maybe they should also read about the French Revolution and tell me that a government represents the majority and therefore any opposition is by definition opposed to the national will.

This country was not founded to "allow" people to practice a particular religion. Rather, it was formed essentially to allow people the freedom to do what they want, religiously, and otherwise. Separation of church and state comes from the clause preventing the government from "establishing" a religion. In other words, the government can not force you to follow any religion.

The whole POINT of giving judges the power to invalidate laws based on their being unconstitutional is PRECISELY to create a check against the majority forcing its morality or desires on minorities. Homosexuals are a minority, and therefore this is EXACTLY what judges should be doing. The TRUE "activist" judges are the ones that are trying to roll back the clock and impose their morality on others. . . i.e. the conservatives. They have been trying to change laws to disallow and restrict rights much more than the "evil liberals" have been trying to expand rights.

Statistically, it's not even close, especially in the last 8 years.

For the record, I am straight, and admit I have a failing in that I don't want to think about what g** people do in the bedroom. What I can't even imagine, is how anyone could justify the proposal that because I think it is "icky" it should be legally prohibited.

Good god.

PS: the religious judgment is also completely flawed, but as it should be irrelevant, I'm not going to go there.

What possible good can come to Apple by taking sides on a very divisive issue?

They just alienated a large portion of their customer base! As an Apple shareholder, I find this very disappointing.

Stick to making great products Apple... not to supporting special rights for people based solely on the deviant type of s** they have! Apple is trying to appease the lowest common denominator, never a good idea in business.

This morning I recommended a new MacBook to a PC using friend of mine looking to purchase an Apple. This afternoon I revoked my recommendation on this news. Most likely a lost sale, and a lost future customer as well. I know I won't be singing Apple's praises anymore!

Those "evil liberals" are responsible for the legal establishment of every single civil right this country has.

Oh yeah, they are also responsible for this country.

Perhaps some of these people whining about "activist judges" or "liberals" should pick up a and actual history book written by an actual historian. Maybe they should also read about the French Revolution and tell me that a government represents the majority and therefore any opposition is by definition opposed to the national will.

This country was not founded to "allow" people to practice a particular religion. Rather, it was formed essentially to allow people the freedom to do what they want, religiously, and otherwise. Separation of church and state comes from the clause preventing the government from "establishing" a religion. In other words, the government can not force you to follow any religion.

The whole POINT of giving judges the power to invalidate laws based on their being unconstitutional is PRECISELY to create a check against the majority forcing its morality or desires on minorities. Homosexuals are a minority, and therefore this is EXACTLY what judges should be doing. The TRUE "activist" judges are the ones that are trying to roll back the clock and impose their morality on others. . . i.e. the conservatives. They have been trying to change laws to disallow and restrict rights much more than the "evil liberals" have been trying to expand rights.

Statistically, it's not even close, especially in the last 8 years.

For the record, I am straight, and admit I have a failing in that I don't want to think about what g** people do in the bedroom. What I can't even imagine, is how anyone could justify the proposal that because I think it is "icky" it should be legally prohibited.

Good god.

PS: the religious judgment is also completely flawed, but as it should be irrelevant, I'm not going to go there.

Just as it is known statistically, that g** marriage or unions destabilize society. This move will help to destabilize Apple just as it has done to Motorola & doing to P&G.<br /><br /> The societal benefit on the whole is counter productive and the burdens on future generations will climb. Interesting, that California in its others choices has already pushed itself to the brink. And the current legal standing is just one more nail.<br /><br /> As a consultant, I have sold hundreds of Mac' and been an uber-evangelist. Sadly, This will no longer be the case.

I think it's great that they did this. They may lose some intolerant, hateful customers, but they will pick up a lot more. I'm not sure why this is even a big deal. Jesus preached love and tolerance, not hate.

Heterosexuals are the ones who have destroyed the sanctity of marriage. Heterosexuals have been cheating on their spouses since the beginning of time. Divorce rates are at an all-time high. If marriage is so sacred, then why is marriage taken so lightly? Even the evangelical ministers on TV (Jimmy Swagart, Jim Bakker, Jesse Jackson, to name a few) who constantly condemn and point the finger of self righteousness at adulterers are often outed as adulterers themselves. (

Dude, you have no idea how far we, as a nation, have fallen from the principals we were founded on.

Schools were started and run by Christians, teachers prayed in school, even the Bible was studied and some children brought guns with them to school! There was safety, love, and thoughtfulness. And, yes, even tolerance (though under authority of God). Today, all those who preach and praise tolerance are typically not tolerant of of Christianity or certain faiths. Government is NOT tolerant of faith in many areas of society.

A government/nation does not change overnight! Ungodly actions and laws have slowly crept into our society and it's the trojan horse that will eventually destroy America (or any nation following the same cyclical path). Study history! It's cyclical. Ungodliness precedes a severely damaged or destroyed nation.

There's a verse in Psalms that says, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord". I believe that verse wholeheartedly. America WAS a nation "who's God is the Lord". We are not anymore and have started to pay the price.

nat also said, "no one, as in nobody at all, will come and stop you. not the government, not your fellow americans."

For the most part, this is currently true, but look at how SO many other countries within the past 100 years have acted. When government becomes bigger and when people choose to diminish Christ or turn away from Him, government becomes more forceful and controlling. Do not be naive in thinking America is immune to this path! It could be 5 years or maybe 100, but the path we are headed is leading in that direction. China, Russia, Korea, India, many arab states, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Indonesia. All these countries, and more, are (or have in recent past) severely persecuted Christians.

Personally, I can't stand this whole issue - and I say that as a g** person. While I'm not personally interested in getting married, why prevent anyone from doing so? I agree that the whole "marriage equality" argument is BS unless you include polygamists. Why is their relationship less valid than any other?

Some will talk about the "sanctity" of marriage. ARE YOU KIDDING? Forget current divorce rates, etc. Why was marriage even created in the first place? And please don't insult me by replying that it's some holy union that God envisioned. Marriage was (and still is) about property rights. That's why marriage started. Where's the "sanctity" in that?

If you don't want to buy or recommend Apple products because they're a company that stands for equality (they obviously walk the talk), who cares? Dump your iPod for a Zune. Trade in your Mac for a PC. All because YOU'RE A BIGOT? More like an idiot.

Apple will continue to sell products, continue to be profitable, continue to innovate, and continue to treat ALL people with respect and decency. The only thing your abandonment of the platform proves is your own bigotry. Like Apple says when asked about low price laptops: "there are some consumers we choose not to serve." I guess bigots are one of those!

It's really simple. The people who wrote the Bible believed the world was flat. And that's just for starters. Haven't we evolved enough to be guided by reality, not absurd superstition and myth?

The sanctity of marriage BS was cobbled together by the "haters" to give what appeared to be a sound argument against marriage, but it's all about hating g** people. Of course, as many have already pointed out, the "sanctity" of marriage was destroyed long ago.

But there's so much more to this: The most avid voices against g** marriage in this country are right wing christians, and while they won't ever come out and say it, as a base, they believe America is "for" christians" only, and they'll say things like, "some of my best friends are" Muslim, but in closed groups it's about hate, so even go so far as to include "white" in this America only.

Just to be clear, I'm not pointing to all christians, I think anyone reading this will understand what group I'm talking about.

The entrance of the christian right into the political arena is nothing other than one group trying to force a populous to living in accordance to their version of right and wrong; there is no other reason. The individual right for the practicing of christianity is not and has not been under threat in this country, the same cannot be said for other religions thanks to these right wing groups.

While I believe Apple can/should enact their own policies within the walls of their company, to put their shareholder's investments at risk with this very public action is not responsible behavior. In fact I would say it shows a great degree of arrogance given our current economy. This should have been weighed more heavily.

Did you guys know that 60 years ago there were only 2 sexually transmitted deseases? Now there are 25! Do you know that there is not one case of STD taht started between a pure couple in a traditional marriage? Wonder what that means? Where did all the STD's come from? Outside of traditional marriage? Yes. Adultry means the same today as 2000 years ago. Fornication has the same meaning today. Why not marriage? Arghh!!! :)

I'm usually pretty liberal, but libertarian when it comes to this. Even though I'd vote no on 8, I think this whole debate is upside down. The question should not be whether govt should sanction g** marriage, it should be whether govt should be in the marriage business at all, and that includes straight marriage. Marriage is a religious/cultural institution which government should leave alone, instead of deciding who to "allow" to marry.

If people want all the rights/responsibilities/etc that are attached to a legal marriage, then this should be like any private contract. And if there are things attached to legal marriage that can't be handled in this manner, then that's where the laws should be changed.

If a guy wants to call another guy his husband, and the tree in his backyard his second husband, and fundamentalists want to be outraged, then great. The state shouldn't be involved, unless the guy with the tree is breaking the penal code in ways that I don't want to know about.

I'd rather the government worry about other issues like, oh, I dunno, war, deficits, terrorism, economic disaster, wildfires... The definition of marriage is not quite up there with flag burning amendments, hanging the ten commandments in schools, and medical marijuana... but it's close.

Apple simply should not take sides on this or any other political issue.

For those who say they are proud of Apple, imagine if they had taken the opposite stance! How many of you would feel so disappointed that you might actually consider no longer supporting Apple? How frustrated would you be feeling over the whole situation?

Perhaps you don't want people who disagree with you to use Apple products? Do you think Apple wants to take that stance?

Apple's products are not inherently political in nature and Apple has made a stupid move in taking sides. If Apple execs feel that strongly on the matter, let them go public as individuals. Don't drag Apple into it.

I and my kids have not equal rights. John, who is five years old, hasn't the right to drive cars. I have not the right to go bed with my friend's consort. Is forbbiden for my students dance in my class. When I go to France as a tourist, I haven't equal rights with french people. A criminal in jail has not the right to go to a party as I have. Etc.

Homosexuals can't do what heteroxuals do. The later have children And this i why they have different rights.

I want to marry my Cats, I love them I do. Why isn't Apple supporting me? Why can't I have 4 wives in California? Stick to Electronics Apple.Don't let Politics drive your product. Next we'll have laptops with candidates faces lasered on them.Of course depending on your political affliction one would cost more than the other.

Just so I'm open about my viewpoint, I hold a strong religious stance that homosexual s** is wrong. My religious beliefs also entreat me to support America's fundamental principles: that everyone has an equal right to personal freedom and that the real job of government is to protect that freedom as fairly as possible.

On one hand, I recognize that marriage is a religious and social institution, but from a government stance, we must consider certain aspects of history, personal freedom, and financial practicality.

Historically, marriage really has had an understood meaning. Other arrangements may be like marriage, but for government to take legal action to call other arrangments "marriage" dilutes the historical meaning. Government would be changing the meaning of a word with a long-standing religious and social significance. If that is absolutely necessary to protect personal freedom, then government should take action. But I don't believe that's the case here.

So what about personal rights? If a homosexual couple want to grant each the right to visit the other in the hospital, who has the right to stop them? What about inheritance rights? These sorts of agreements should not be inhibited by law. However, they do not necessitate changing the definition of marriage.

What about the rights of others? How many laws tell others how they must treat a couple if they are married? Perhaps government should stay out of it and let private individuals and businesses decide for themselves what they want to support as a "marriage." That sounds like a "freedom" stance to me--but I'd probably have to look into the legal details to understand the real impact. In any case, government must be careful about changing the definition of marriage if that has implications on the freedom of others.

Finally, let's talk about taxes. We can't just let anyone claim anyone else as a dependent, so we must have some sort of "marriage-like" rules for filing jointly. That means we must either take a stance on what marriage is (heterosexual, homosexual, polygamy, etc) or we must do nothing more than make certain legal requirements (e.g., you must have a binding agreement to share joint ownership of all your properties) before we let people file jointly. Even then, you leave the system open for abuses. As long as government is using marriage as a means of determining tax laws, it is supporting the institution. I then (as does everyone) have the right to call on government to support marriages as I believe it should.

So, putting all this together, here's my stance: I support protection of the definition of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. I also support the concept of domestic unions, which would provide easily accessible arrangements between interested parties that establish certain legal and financial rights between them. As always, the real devil will be in the details.

My g** brother got married in California to his partner of 20 years, so far the world has not ended, and as far as I know this has not impacted anyone else. I don't know what opponents of same s** marriage are afraid of. Marriage willl never be sacred until we ban divorce but nobody in the right mind would vote for that. People are people and we all want the same things and there should not be laws made to prevent that.

so, this DEFINITION of marriage is what's got folks knickers in a knot is it?

which definition are we going buy? every culture has a different one.

some grant divorce easily which makes it kinda meaningless. many are arranged which makes it, h***, i don't know what that is. in our own society it was often arranged in earlier days. sacred stuff that! and those where the wife has few if any rights. and those where an unmarried man was scorned. and those where marriage went through many changes over time (you know, like accepting g** marriage!).

and those where if you lived together for one year you were married, no ceremony necessary. and if you split you were divorced.those where the wife's role was to give birth, prostitutes and concubines were there for the more erotic adventures.those where the father picked his sons' bride and paid a price to her father for her.in early christianity abstinence and virginity were favored over marriage and marriage and divorce were considered private matters. it wasn't til medieval times that the priest actually became involved.in the 17th century marriage again became secular and a justice of the peace could get it done. then the church got REALLY involved. but hey, that's for another post.

so that definition of marriage as an institution is somewhat vague to me. got anything better?

Wouldn't it make more sense to just get government out of the marriage business altogether and not recognize ANY definition of marriage. Civil unions for ALL. Case closed.

As a shareholder I don't like the idea of Apple or any other company spending money on political issues, even ones that I might support or are in the best interest of the company. If an entity can't vote (and companies can't; at least not yet) then that entity shouldn't be able to make political contributions.

"I and my kids have not equal rights. John, who is five years old, hasn't the right to drive cars. I have not the right to go bed with my friend's consort. Is forbbiden for my students dance in my class..."

uh, what? your kid most certainly has the right to drive when he's of legal age. Your students certainly have the right to dance somewhere else. What rights in France don't you have? You can't go their speed limit? Can't take their public transportation? A criminal forfeited his rights.There's no law that says you can't bed your friend's consort if she agrees. You're mixing legal and moral issues.

Having children is your base line for this? There are 3 million REPORTED cases of child abuse and neglect in the US every year, experts consider the number to be extremely low because of the ones that aren't reported. And just being able to give birth is your criteria? You're saying "Hey, can you give birth? Great, you're ok with me!"

""We can't have...'In God We Trust' shouldn't be on the dollar bill..."

and we shouldn't. at one time we had e pluribus unum (from many one) on all money. then in the religious fervor of the civil war a bunch of christians got hold of a sympathetic congress and voila. it didn't become our national motto until '56 when mccarthyism and the cold war were both raging (one as a lunatic).

it is NOT what the founding fathers chose. e pluribus unum was their choice.

pledge allegiance? again, added by those ever watchful christians. gotta love 'em. and when did that get added? '54, raging cold war... you get the picture.

so our country was around for a couple of centuries before the christians got their mitts on these and managed to cluster f*&k what the founding fathers had so brilliantly implemented.

It's inappropriate for Apple, a public company, to take such a position. The Apple board of directors have a job to do, which has nothing to do with getting this bill passed. I.E whether this bill passes or not will not affect Apple's sales, so it's quite elitist of them to make such a statement.

those sure are some handy "facts" you're being spoon-fed by some nutjob you call an authority.

some real facts for you, dslund:

there would be no STDs between ANY couple, if it were completely monogamous, regardless of sexual orientation. STDs come from sharing fluids with infected persons, through s**, needle sharing, blood transfusions, etc. if 2 people are clean to begin with, and remain monogamous, STDs simply don't happen. this is true for g*** and straights.

just being a hetero couple does not make it "pure", whatever the h*** you think that means. monogamy = purity, not orientation. take a look at hetero divorce rates, and infidelity before you go pointing fingers.

homosexuality did not create STDs. they have been with us for millenia. you can thank soldiers touring overseas for bringing a bunch more home with them. you can thank hypocritical clergy and holler rollers for banging hookers and brigning it home. AND you can thank the out-of-control lifestyle of the so-called sexual revolution, g** and straight.

the origin of AIDs is in Africa, not San Francisco or anywhere else that you think is some modern-day Sodom and Gomorrha.

in most of the world, AIDS is a hetero disease. sorry. too bad. so sad.

stop relying on your church or political group for your bullshit "facts". do your own research. use the brain that God supposedly gave you.

disclaimer: i am a happily married (over 7 years now), monogamous, straight male. i have never had a single STD in my life.

...involvement, almost every major corporation takes public stands on social and political issues, by sponsoring events and campaigns that they, as a corporate citizen, believe are valuable to their entity and to the society they participate in.

this ranges from Ducks Unlimited to Susan G Komen to supporting politicians to g** Rights to philathropy.

you don't just get to cry foul when something they support rubs you the wrong way. if you disagree with it, sell the stock and start buying Windows PCs again. put your moeny where your mouth is.

personally, my wife and I just bought more AAPL and picked up new a new MB and new MBP (2.8 w00t!).

But this is really bringing out the bigots, the ones who seem to hate anything that isn't a heterosexual Christian Caucasian who is from their own country. America was founded on diversity, it was created, and substandard by people of foreign countries, of all different religions, cultures, etc. and its seen all over the country.

Personally, I am very happy that Apple is supporting equal rights to homosexuals. I think most of the people who are for banning homosexual marriage are those who are usually hate homosexuals, vast majority of them for religious reasons. Sadly, its the bigots like this who we had to fight against in history such the ones who didn't want blacks to have rights and be segregated.

Personally, it shouldn't matter if your homosexual or heterosexual, you should have the right to marry if you truly love that person.

What I feel is that if you don't like it, keep it to yourself. I feel the same way about religion, people are WAY too open about religion in America. You go to most other countries, they treat religion as a very private matter and usually keep them to themselves, while here we are almost way too open about it such as people commonly wear religious symbols, have it on their cars and signs, and ask what church you go to (in those other countries, asking that would be considered very rude). They also put religion in allot of things it doesn't belong here in America, including, sadly as were seeing here, politics. And we know what hap pends if we let religion get too much into politics, just look at the Middle Eastern Shara Law countries. Some of Europe did look like a Christian version of that at one time and that's what the Founding Fathers wanted to PREVENT with the First Amendment. But sadly, people tend to ignore the First Amendment anymore, including states (such as Atheists (which I am an Atheist and a Liberal, aka sadly a huge source of hate in America...) can't hold office or be tried in court in Tennessee).

Also, it isn't just Apple who is supporting this. Google has supported the "No to Issue 8" campaign as well and donated about the same amount of money. So those same bigots should stop using Google's search engine, Google Earth/Google Maps, or anything else Google makes too...

This is about discrimination and nothing else. People that marry people of another gender should not make laws preventing people from marring people of the same gender. When you do this you create a second class without all the rights of the first class. This second class is expected to pay taxes yet is not allowed a very basic legal right. Those wishing to oppress fellow US citizens can go f*ck themselves.

Discrimination is a part of Justice, and not discrimination at all is the worst injustice.

People can live together in many different ways. And they rights and oughts must be different.

As reseacher I have been living in the same house with two of my friends, also reseachers (it's not an example). This kind of union is more similary to unions betwen homosexuals than family union. Therefore I and my friends must have similar rights and oughts than homosexuals living together.

Its sad that the homophobic bigots are still coming out here. Especially comments like the one above, screams close-minded bigot all over it.

This is about rights, nothing more. Like I once said, this is similar to when blacks were discriminated and people didn't want them to have rights (and I am sure some bigots probably still don't want them too). Like I said, these people hate anyone who isn't a heterosexual Christian Caucasian, preferently from their country.

I personally don't see what's so wrong with letting homosexuals marry. I feel they should have the right to do this if they love each other, no matter if their heterosexual or homosexual. Though its something I would never participate in since its a very religious thing and I'm an Atheist.

And for those avoid Apple's products or Google's products, I am sure there's homosexuals supporting the No to 8 issue helping develop Linux apps, working at Microsoft, etc. Apple/Google supporting this in California is a very stupid reason NOT to use their products.

I'm mad that Apple exploited my relationship with them as a customer to make a political statement. So I just made one of my own: Donated the amount of money I spent in the Apple & iTunes store this weekend to the Yes on 8 campaign. Yes, Apple, this is about civil rights: The ones we already possessed, not the new ones that courts try to invent.

Login Here

Now AAPL Stock: 112.12 ( 0 )

Cirrus creates Lightning-headphone dev kit

Apple supplier Cirrus Logic has introduced a MFi-compliant new development kit for companies interested in using Cirrus' chips to create Lightning-based headphones, which -- regardless of whether rumors about Apple dropping the analog headphone jack in its iPhone this fall -- can offer advantages to music-loving iOS device users. The kit mentions some of the advantages of an all-digital headset or headphone connector, including higher-bitrate support, a more customizable experience, and support for power and data transfer into headphone hardware. Several companies already make Lightning headphones, and Apple has supported the concept since June 2014. http://bit.ly/29giiZj

Share

Developer162d

Apple Store app offers Procreate Pocket

The Apple Store app for iPhone, which periodically rewards users with free app gifts, is now offering the iPhone "Pocket" version of drawing app Procreate for those who have the free Apple Store app until July 28. Users who have redeemed the offer by navigating to the "Stores" tab of the app and swiping past the "iPhone Upgrade Program" banner to the "Procreate" banner have noted that only the limited Pocket (iPhone) version of the app is available free, even if the Apple Store app is installed and the offer redeemed on an iPad. The Pocket version currently sells for $3 on the iOS App Store. [32.4MB]

Share

162d

Porsche adds CarPlay to 2017 Panamera

Porsche has added a fifth model of vehicle to its CarPlay-supported lineup, announcing that the 2017 Panamera -- which will arrive in the US in January -- will include Apple's infotainment technology, and be seen on a giant 12.3-inch touchscreen as part of an all-new Porsche Communication Management system. The luxury sedan starts at $99,900 for the 4S model, and scales up to the Panamera Turbo, which sells for $146,900. Other vehicles that currently support CarPlay include the 2016 911 and the 2017 models of Macan, 718 Boxster, and 718 Cayman. The company did not mention support for Google's corresponding Android Auto in its announcement. http://bit.ly/295ZQ94

Share

Industry162d

Apple employees testing wheelchair features

New features included in the forthcoming watchOS 3 are being tested by Apple retail store employees, including a new activity-tracking feature that has been designed with wheelchair users in mind. The move is slightly unusual in that, while retail employees have previously been used to test pre-release versions of OS X and iOS, this marks the first time they've been included in the otherwise developer-only watchOS betas. The company is said to have gone to great lengths to modify the activity tracker for wheelchair users, including changing the "time to stand" notification to "time to roll" and including two wheelchair-centric workout apps. http://bit.ly/2955JDa

Share

Troubleshooting162d

SanDisk reveals two 256GB microSDXC cards

SanDisk has introduced two 256GB microSDXC cards. Arriving in August for $150, the Ultra microSDXC UHS-I Premium Edition card offers transfer speeds of up to 95MB/s for reading data. The Extreme microSDXC UHS-I card can read at a fast 100MB/s and write at up to 90MB/s, and will be shipping sometime in the fourth quarter for $200. http://bit.ly/294Q1If

Share

Upgrades/storage163d

Apple's third-quarter results due July 26

Apple has advised it will be issuing its third-quarter results on July 26, with a conference call to answer investor and analyst queries about the earnings set to take place later that day. The stream of the call will go live at 2pm PT (5pm ET) via Apple's investor site, with the results themselves expected to be released roughly 30 minutes before the call commences. Apple's guidance for the quarter put revenue at between $41 billion and $43 billion. http://apple.co/1oi1Pbm

Share

Investor164d

Twitter stickers slowly roll out to users

Twitter has introduced "stickers," allowing users to add extra graphical elements to their photos before uploading them to the micro-blogging service. A library of hundreds of accessories, props, and emoji will be available to use as stickers, which can be resized, rotated, and placed anywhere on the photograph. Images with stickers will also become searchable with viewers able to select a sticker to see how others use the same graphic in their own posts. Twitter advises stickers will be rolling out to users over the next few weeks, and will work on both the mobile apps and through the browser. http://bit.ly/29bbwUE